secretary of defense jim mattis house armed services committee written statement for ... · be your...
TRANSCRIPT
AS PREPARED
1
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE JIM MATTIS HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2018
Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, distinguished members of the
committee; I am here at your invitation to testify on two subjects: the 2018 National
Defense Strategy and Nuclear Posture Review. I am joined by Vice Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs, General Selva.
Even in the midst of our ongoing counter-terrorism campaigns, my role is to keep the
peace for one more year… one more month… one more day… giving Secretary
Tillerson and our diplomats time to resolve crises through diplomatic channels. The
Department of Defense does this by providing the Commander-in-Chief with military
options that ensure our diplomats negotiate from a position of strength.
Up front, I need to note three days from now I will visit our Nation’s first Security Force
Assistance Brigade in Fort Benning, Georgia as they prepare to deploy to Afghanistan.
To advance the security of our nation, these troops are putting themselves in harm’s
way, in effect signing a blank check payable to the American people with their lives.
They do so despite Congress’ abrogation of its Constitutional responsibility to provide
stable funding. Our military has been operating under debilitating continuing resolutions
for more than 1,000 days during the past decade. These men and women hold the line
for America while lacking this most fundamental Congressional support, a predictable
budget.
Congress mandated this National Defense Strategy—the first one in a decade—then
shut down the government the day of its release. Today, we are again operating under
a disruptive continuing resolution. It is not lost on me that as I testify before you this
morning, we are again on the verge of a government shutdown or, at best, another
damaging continuing resolution.
I regret that without sustained, predictable appropriations, my presence here today
wastes your time, because no strategy can survive without the funding necessary to
resource it. We all know America can afford survival.
AS PREPARED
2
2018 NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY
The 2018 National Defense Strategy provides a pathway for America’s military to
reclaim an era of strategic purpose, alert to the realities of a changing world and
attentive to the need to protect our values and the countries that stand with us.
America’s military protects our way of life and our realm of ideas—not just our
geography, and this is the defense strategy that will guide all of our efforts.
Nations as different as China and Russia have chosen to be strategic competitors. They
seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models and pursue veto power
over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions. Rogue regimes like
North Korea and Iran persist in taking outlaw actions that undermine and threaten
regional and global stability. Despite our successes to date against ISIS’s physical
caliphate, violent extremist organizations continue to sow hatred, incite violence and
murder innocents. Across the globe, democracies are taking notice.
We recognize great power competition is once again a reality. We will continue to
prosecute the campaign against terrorism but in our new defense strategy, great power
competition—not terrorism—is now the primary focus of U.S. national security.
Our military remains capable, but our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of
warfare—air, land, sea, space, and cyber. Under frequent continuing resolutions and
sequester’s budget caps, our advantages continue to shrink. The combination of rapidly
changing technology, the negative impact on military readiness resulting from the
longest continuous stretch of combat in our nation’s history, and insufficient funding
have created an overstretched and under-resourced military.
During last week’s State of the Union address, President Trump said “weakness is the
surest path to conflict.” To those who might suggest that we should accept a year-long
continuing resolution, it would mean a return to the disastrous sequestration level of
funding for the military.
AS PREPARED
3
In a world awash in change and increasing threats, there is no room for complacency.
History makes clear that no country has a pre-ordained right to victory on the battlefield.
Framed within the President Trump’s National Security Strategy and aligned with the
Department of State, the 2018 National Defense Strategy provides clear strategic
direction for America’s military. A long-term strategic competition requires the seamless
integration of multiple elements of national power—diplomacy, information, economics,
finance, intelligence, law enforcement, and military.
The Department’s principal priorities are long-term strategic competitions with China
and Russia. Given the magnitude of the threats they pose to U.S. security and
prosperity today, Congress must commit to both an increased and sustained investment
in our capabilities.
Concurrently, the Department will sustain its efforts to deter and counter rogue regimes
such as North Korea and Iran, defeat terrorist threats to the United States, and
consolidate our gains in Iraq and Afghanistan while moving to a more resource-
sustainable approach.
More than any other nation, America can expand the competitive space. We can
challenge our competitors where we possess advantages and they lack strength.
To restore our competitive military edge, the defense strategy pursues three primary
lines of effort to:
build a more lethal force,
strengthen traditional alliances while building new partnerships, and
reform the Department’s business practices for performance and affordability.
Build a More Lethal Force
Everything we do must contribute to the lethality of our military. The paradox of war is
that an enemy will attack a perceived weakness, so we cannot adopt a single,
preclusive form of warfare. Rather, we must be able to fight across the spectrum of
AS PREPARED
4
combat. This means the size and composition of our force matters. The nation must
field sufficient, capable forces to deter conflict. If deterrence fails, we must win. To
defend our way of life, our military will embrace change while holding fast to traditional,
proven attributes that make us the most formidable force on any battlefield. Those who
would threaten America’s experiment in democracy must know: if you threaten us, it will
be your longest and worst day.
To implement this strategy, we will invest in key capabilities, recognizing we cannot
expect success fighting tomorrow’s conflicts with yesterday’s weapons and equipment.
Driven by this strategy, next week you will see in our FY-19 budget investments in the
following: space and cyber, nuclear deterrent forces, missile defense, advanced
autonomous systems, artificial intelligence, and professional military education to
provide our high-quality troops what they need to win. We will prioritize rebuilding
readiness while modernizing our existing force.
We are also changing our forces’ posture to prioritize readiness for warfighting in major
combat, making us strategically predictable for our allies and operationally
unpredictable for any adversary.
Increasing lethality requires us to reshape our approach to managing our outstanding
workforce talent, reinvigorating our military education and honing civilian expertise. The
creativity and talent of the department is our deepest wellspring of strength, and
warrants greater investment.
Strengthen Traditional Alliances while Building New Partnerships
Our second line of effort is to strengthen traditional alliances while building new
partnerships.
In the past, I fought many times, but I never fought in a solely American formation; it
was always alongside foreign troops. As Winston Churchill said, “the only thing harder
than fighting with allies is fighting without them.” We are stronger when we stand
together, and our military will be designed, trained and ready to fight alongside allies.
AS PREPARED
5
History is clear—nations with allies thrive. We inherited this approach to security and
prosperity from the Greatest Generation and it has served the United States well for the
last 70 years. Working by, with, and through allies who carry their fair share is a source
of strength. Since the costly victory in World War II, Americans have carried a
disproportionate share of the global defense burden while others recovered.
Today, the growing economic strength of allies and partners has enabled them to step
up, as demonstrated by the more than 70 nations and international organizations
participating in the Defeat-ISIS campaign, and again in the 40-some nations standing
shoulder-to-shoulder in NATO’s Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan. Most NATO
allies are also increasing their defense budgets, giving credence to the value of
democracies standing together.
To strengthen and work jointly with more allies, our organizations, processes, and
procedures must be ally-friendly. The Department will do more than just listen to other
nations’ ideas—we will be willing to be persuaded by them, recognizing that not all good
ideas come from the country with the most aircraft carriers. This line of effort will bolster
an extended network capable of decisively meeting the challenges of our time.
Reform the Department’s Business Practices for Performance and Affordability
We are reforming the business practices of the Department to provide both solvency
and security, thereby gaining full benefit from every dollar spent. Every day we will earn
the trust of Congress and the American people. Affordability matters and we must be
good stewards of the tax dollars entrusted to us. In this regard, we will deliver our
Department’s full financial audit this year, because results and accountability count.
This first audit in DoD’s history will reveal how we can be better stewards.
The Department is transitioning to a culture of performance and affordability that
operates at the speed of relevance. We will prioritize speed of delivery, continuous
adaptation, and frequent modular upgrades. With your critical support, we will shed
outdated management and acquisition processes while adopting American industries’
best practices.
AS PREPARED
6
Our management structure and processes are not engraved in stone. They are a
means to an end—empowering the warfighter with the knowledge, equipment, and
support needed to fight and win. If current structures inhibit our pursuit of lethality, I
expect Service Secretaries and Agency Heads to consolidate, eliminate, or restructure
to achieve the mission.
The 2018 National Defense Strategy’s three primary lines of effort—building a more
lethal force, strengthening traditional alliances while building new partnerships, and
reforming the Department’s business practices for performance and affordability—will
restore our comparative military advantage, ensuring we are prepared to fight across
the full spectrum of combat.
Force Application and Management
The central problem for the Department is the erosion of military advantage in key
strategic regions. As a consequence, the Joint Force needs to be more lethal, adaptive,
resilient, and able to fight alongside allies and partners to prevail in any conflict involving
our vital interests. This requires a flexible global posture and an agile employment
model that combines combat-credible forward forces competing below the level of
armed conflict with flexible theater forces and surge forces that are able to deter
attacks, blunt adversary attacks, and bring decisive force to bear.
Deterring or defeating great-power aggression is a fundamentally different challenge
than the regional conflicts that were the basis of our planning constructs for the last 25
years. Fighting two simultaneous wars against rogue states no longer represents the
most pressing challenge to American security and prosperity.
The reemergence of great powers, diffusion of technologies, proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, and new concepts of warfare and competition that span the entire
spectrum of conflict require different and greater dedication of resources (Figure 1).
AS PREPARED
7
During day-to-day competition, the Joint Force must be ready to simultaneously:
Defend the homeland;
Deter nuclear and non-nuclear strategic attack;
Deter aggression in the Indo-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East;
Degrade terrorist and weapons of mass destruction threats; and
Defend U.S. interests below armed conflict.
During conflicts, a fully mobilized Joint Force must be ready to simultaneously:
Defend the homeland;
Deter nuclear and non-nuclear strategic attack;
Defeat aggression against the United States, its national interests, allies, or key
partners by a great-power adversary;
Deter opportunistic aggression in a second theater; and
Disrupt imminent terrorist or non-strategic weapons of mass destruction threats
to the homeland.
Figure 1. Simultaneity guidance spanning day-to-day competition and full mobilization for war.
AS PREPARED
8
NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW
One of the key elements of the 2018 National Defense Strategy is to ensure America’s
military provides a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent. Last January, President
Trump directed a nuclear posture review to “ensure the United States’ nuclear deterrent
is modern, robust, flexible, resilient, ready, and appropriately tailored to deter 21st
century threats and reassure allies.”
Following the President’s direction to initiate the fourth post-Cold War review of the
nation’s nuclear posture, an interagency team comprised of experts from the
Departments of Defense, State, and Energy conducted months of analysis to develop a
nuclear policy and posture suited to the contemporary security environment.
I recently received a letter from Senators concerned that the 2018 Nuclear Posture
Review would “undermine decades of U.S. leadership on efforts to reduce and
eventually eliminate the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons.”
To the contrary, the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review reaffirms the mutually reinforcing role
of nuclear deterrence in a complex and dynamic security environment while
underscoring continued U.S. commitment to non-proliferation, counter-nuclear terrorism,
and arms control. Specifically, the review reflects the Department of Defense’s strategic
priority to maintain a safe and effective nuclear deterrent that will successfully:
deter nuclear and non-nuclear strategic attacks,
assure our allies and partners,
respond effectively should deterrence fail, and
hedge against future uncertainties and dangers.
I address other concerns raised in the aforementioned letter in Table 1:
Concern Response
“Developing new, more useable low-yield nuclear weapons are unnecessary and destabilizing.”
Low-yield nuclear deterrence weapons are not “more useable”, as they are not for warfighting but to bolster deterrence—to convince Russia that the limited use of nuclear weapons in conflict is not a viable strategy.
AS PREPARED
9
“Your reported decision to expand the conditions under which the United States might use its nuclear weapons, including to respond to a broadened range of nun-nuclear attacks, is equally disturbing”
The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review uses the same language regarding the use of nuclear weapons as the previous 2010 review: “the United States would only consider the employment of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances in defense of the vital interests of the United States, its allies, and partners.” The 2010 Nuclear Poster Review contemplated the use of nuclear weapons in response to conventional, chemical, and biological weapons attacks.
The costs to “modernize, sustain, and operate our existing nuclear triad” are “fiscally irresponsible”
Currently, we allocate about 3 percent of our defense budget to maintain nuclear deterrent forces, and modernization will require an additional 3.4 percent for about 10 years. Despite the cost to modernize, it remains a lot less expensive than fighting a war.
“your NPR at present hardly mentions the NPT” (Non-Proliferation Treaty)
The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review states “NPT is the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime” and “the U.S. remains committed to nuclear non-proliferation, continues to abide by its obligations under the NPT, and will work to strengthen the NPT regime.”
“Finally, your review reportedly pays only superficial attention to the substantial threat posed by nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation.”
For effective deterrence, the U.S. will hold accountable any state, terrorist group, or other non-state actor that supports or enables terrorists to obtain or employ nuclear devices. Adversaries must understand that a terrorist nuclear attack against the United States or its allies and partners would qualify as an “extreme circumstance” under U.S. nuclear declaratory policy.
Table 1. Response to letter from 16 Senators expressing concern about the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review
The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review comes at a critical moment in our nation’s history, for
America confronts an international security situation that is more complex and
demanding than any since the end of the Cold War. In this environment, it is not
possible to delay modernization if we are to preserve a credible nuclear deterrent—
ensuring that our diplomats continue to speak from a position of strength on matters of
war and peace.
The United States remains committed to its global leadership role to reduce the number
of nuclear weapons, and to fulfill existing treaty and arms control obligations. The 1991
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) set a ceiling of 6,000 accountable strategic
nuclear warheads. Shorter-range nuclear weapons were almost entirely eliminated from
America’s nuclear arsenal in the early 1990s. The 2002 Strategic Offensive Reduction
AS PREPARED
10
Treaty and the 2010 New START Treaty further lowered strategic nuclear force levels to
1,550 accountable warheads.
During this period, the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile drew down by more than 85
percent from its Cold War high. Many hoped conditions had been set for even deeper
reductions in global nuclear arsenals, and, ultimately, for their elimination, yet we must
recognize that deterrence and arms control can only be achieved with a credible
capability.
A review of the global nuclear situation is sobering. While Russia has reduced only the
number of its accountable strategic nuclear force as agreed upon in the New START
treaty, Russia is modernizing these weapons as well as other nuclear systems. Moscow
advocates a theory of nuclear escalation for military conflict. China, too, is modernizing
and expanding its already considerable nuclear forces, pursuing entirely new nuclear
capabilities. It is also modernizing its conventional military to challenge U.S. military
superiority. Despite universal condemnation in the United Nations, North Korea’s
nuclear provocations threaten regional and global peace, and Iran’s nuclear ambitions
remain an unresolved concern. Globally, nuclear terrorism remains a tangible threat.
As Senator McCain said last week, “since the end of the Cold War, we have let our
nuclear capabilities atrophy under the false belief that the era of great power
competition was over. As the new National Defense Strategy rightly acknowledges, we
now face the renewed threat of competition from Russia and China—and we cannot
ignore their investments in nuclear weapons in addition to conventional forces.”
The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review reaffirms the findings of previous reviews that the
nuclear triad—comprised of silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, bomber
aircraft, and nuclear submarines—is the most strategically sound means of ensuring
nuclear deterrence. To remain effective, however, we must recapitalize our Cold War
legacy nuclear deterrence forces, continuing a modernization program initiated during
the previous Administration.
AS PREPARED
11
Figure 2. Development of nuclear delivery systems by competitors versus the United States.
To quote my predecessor, Secretary Carter, “we have been in a nuclear arms race for
two decades now… but the U.S. hasn’t been running the race,” as you can see
demonstrated in this chart [nuclear delivery systems]. That gives credence to my
predecessor’s observation. Nuclear delivery system development over the last eight
years shows numerous advances by Russia, China, and North Korea versus the near
absence of such activity by the United States, with competitors and adversaries’
developing 34 new systems as compared to only one for the U.S.—the F-35 aircraft.
We must look reality in the eye and see the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. This
Nuclear Posture Review reflects the current, pragmatic assessment of the threats we
face and the uncertainties regarding the future security environment. Given the range
of potential adversaries, their capabilities and strategic objectives, this review calls for a
tailored nuclear deterrent strategy and a diverse set of nuclear capabilities that provides
flexibility to tailor our approach to deterring one or more potential adversaries in different
circumstances. We are not expanding the role of nuclear weapons, and it remains U.S.
policy to consider employing nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances to defend
the vital interests of the United States, its allies, and partners.
AS PREPARED
12
Nuclear forces, along with our conventional forces and other instruments of national
power, deter aggression and preserve peace. Our goal is to convince adversaries they
have nothing to gain and everything to lose from the use of nuclear weapons. In no way
does this approach lower the nuclear threshold. Rather, by convincing adversaries that
even limited use of nuclear weapons will be more costly than they can tolerate, it raises
that threshold.
By the time we complete the necessary modernization of these forces, the legacy
systems will have served decades beyond their initial life expectancy. This review
affirms the modernization programs initiated during the previous Administration to
replace our nuclear ballistic missile submarines, strategic bombers, nuclear air-
launched cruise missiles, ICBMs, and associated nuclear command and control.
Modernizing our dual-capable fighter bombers with next-generation F-35 fighter aircraft
will maintain the strength of NATO’s deterrence posture and maintain our ability to
forward deploy nuclear weapons, should the security situation demand it.
Recapitalizing the nuclear weapons complex of laboratories and plants is also long past
due; it is vital we ensure the capability to design, produce, assess, and maintain these
weapons for as long as they are required. Due to consistent underfunding, significant
and sustained investments will be required over the coming decade to ensure that the
National Nuclear Security Administration will be able to deliver at the rate needed to
support nuclear deterrence into the 2030s and beyond.
Maintaining an effective nuclear deterrent is much less expensive than fighting a war
that we were unable to deter. Maintenance costs for today’s nuclear deterrent are
approximately three percent of the annual defense budget. Additional funding of another
three to four percent, over more than a decade, will be required to replace these aging
systems. This is a top priority for the Department of Defense. We are mindful of the
sustained financial commitment and gratefully recognize the ongoing support of the
American people and the United States Congress for this important mission.
This review rests on a bedrock truth: nuclear deterrence will continue to play a critical
role in deterring nuclear attack and in preventing large-scale conventional warfare
AS PREPARED
13
between nuclear-armed states for the foreseeable future. U.S. nuclear weapons assure
and defend our allies against conventional and nuclear threats, furthering our non-
proliferation goals and increasing global security.
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the vital role our service members and
civilians play in maintaining a safe, secure, and ready nuclear force. Without their
ceaseless and often unheralded efforts, America would not possess a nuclear deterrent.
At the end of the day, deterrence comes down to the men and women in uniform – in
silos, in the air, and beneath the sea. To each and every one of them, I wish to express
my personal respect and that of a grateful and safe Nation.
IMPACT OF CONGRESSIONAL INACTION
The National Defense Strategy and Nuclear Posture Review align with the President’s
National Security Strategy, guiding all of our efforts. As I said earlier, no strategy can
survive without the necessary stable, predictable funding. Failure to modernize our
military risks leaving us with a force that could dominate the last war but be irrelevant to
tomorrow’s security. We need Congress to lift the defense spending caps and support
a budget for our military.
Let me be clear: as hard as the last 16 years of war have been, no enemy in the field
has done more to harm the readiness of the U.S. military than the combined impact of
the Budget Control Act’s defense spending caps, worsened by operating in 10 of the
last 11 years under continuing resolutions of varied and unpredictable duration.
For too long we have asked our military to carry-on stoically with a “success at any cost”
attitude. Our troops work tirelessly to accomplish every mission with increasingly
inadequate and misaligned resources simply because the Congress has not maintained
regular order. The fact that our volunteer military has performed so well is a credit to
their dedication and professionalism. We expect the men and women of our military to
be faithful in their service, even when going in harm’s way. We must also remain
faithful to them. As Speaker Ryan said in January, “our men and women in uniform are
not bargaining chips.”
AS PREPARED
14
As Chairman Thornberry said in January, “If Congress does not come together to find a
way to fund this strategy, Secretary Mattis must explicitly inform Congress and the
American people of the consequences of failure.”
The consequences of not providing a budget are clear. Even though we are protecting
ongoing operations from CR disruptions, each increment of funding in support of our
partners in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria requires a 15-day congressional notification. My
commanders in the field write to me for help in getting timely and predictable funds for
their efforts as they work to execute our strategy.
Additionally, should you stumble into a yearlong continuing resolution, your military will:
- not be able to provide pay for our troops by the end of the fiscal year,
- not recruit the 15,000 Army Soldiers and 4,000 Air Force Airmen required to fill
critical manning shortfalls,
- not maintain our ships at sea with the proper balance between operations and
time in port for maintenance,
- ground aircraft due to a lack of maintenance and spare parts,
- deplete the ammunition, training, and manpower required to deter war, and
- delay contracts for vital acquisition programs necessary to modernize the force.
I cannot overstate the impact to our troops’ morale from all this uncertainty.
Today, as I sit here, we are engaged in prudent planning for another disruptive
government shutdown.
I cannot care more about our country’s defense than this Congress, for it is Congress
alone which has the Constitutional authority to “raise and support Armies” and to
“provide and maintain” a Navy. We need Congress back in the driver’s seat, not in the
spectator’s seat of the Budget Control Act’s indiscriminate and automatic cuts.
I know that in time of a major war, Congress will provide our military with what they
need. But money at the time of crisis fails to deter war, and you know we would at that
AS PREPARED
15
point have no time to prepare, as it takes months and years to produce the munitions,
training, and readiness required to fight well.
To carry out the strategy you rightly directed we develop, we need you to pass a budget
now. If we are to sustain our military’s primacy, we need budget predictability. I know
many want to avoid additional spending, but Congress must take action now to ensure
our military lethality is sufficient to defend our way of life, preserve the prosperity our
country enjoys, and pass on the freedoms we enjoy to the next generation. I ask that
you not let disagreements on domestic policy continue to hold our Nation’s defense
hostage.
General Selva will now discuss the military dimensions of the 2018 National Defense
Strategy and Nuclear Posture Review.
# # #